alt.conspiracy.jfk
Harry
trolls, weirdos, and idiots. No one is discussing anything of
importance, there’s just puerile behavior, obfuscation, sophistry, and
just plain stupidity.
The LONE-NUTTERS on this board don’t really believe what they’re
posting and they really don’t believe the government’s version of
events. No one is that stupid. They just want to cause problems and
cause people to waste their time endlessly debating things that don’t
amount to a hill of amoeba shit. It’s no wonder so many people have
left this board.
If you want to sit around all day long and jerk each off, that’s your
business. It’s the same shit every motherfucking day—idiocy. It’s like
dealing with errant children with Down’s Syndrome.
BTW, Justme, BLOW ME!!
Ta Ta.
muc...@gmail.com
Moronic, agenda-driven, circle-jerking disinfo agents/pervs... why do
I get the impression that you're talking about your CT friends?
> BTW, Justme, BLOW ME!!
>
> Ta Ta.
Good riddance.
Harry
Who said I left?
BLOW ME, you CUNT!!!
Gil Jesus
Harry, nothing would please the trolls on this board than to see
someone as informed as yourself leave. That's why they say, "good
riddance".
That's what they want. Why ?
Because they've been sent here by one Johns McAdams, the moderator of
alt.assassination.jfk to destroy this newsgroup using insults and
sarcasm to distract and disrupt the discussion of the evidence and
testimony.
They've been successful in the past of frustrating newbees right out
of here.
Their continuing attacks on myself, Dave Healy (aeffects) and Tom
Rossley (Tomnln) are evidence of how short they've fallen in getting
rid of some of us.
The whole story of McAdams' plan to destroy a.c.j. can be found here
in the FAQ :
Bud
> There’s nothing being accomplished on this board.
True.
> There’s too many
> trolls, weirdos, and idiots.
True.
>No one is discussing anything of
> importance, there’s just puerile behavior, obfuscation, sophistry, and
> just plain stupidity.
True. You`ve pegged the kooks well.
> The LONE-NUTTERS on this board don’t really believe what they’re
> posting and they really don’t believe the government’s version of
> events.
Of course we do. What the government returned is the only possible
explanation for what we have in evidence. That is why you will never
see a contending CT version of events.
> No one is that stupid.
Yah, why would anyone believe that shots came from where people saw
a shooter or rifle barrel? Who would think the shooter was the person
holding the murder weapon in photos? Why would anyone think that a
traitorous political fanatic would kill a political figure?
>They just want to cause problems and
> cause people to waste their time endlessly debating things that don’t
> amount to a hill of amoeba shit. It’s no wonder so many people have
> left this board.
>
> If you want to sit around all day long and jerk each off, that’s your
> business. It’s the same shit every motherfucking day—idiocy. It’s like
> dealing with errant children with Down’s Syndrome.
Well, certainly the quality of posting has risen since you came
here.
> BTW, Justme, BLOW ME!!
Like above. You should work on your flaming, it lacks any wit or
imagination.
> Ta Ta.
Before you go Harry, I have a question. Have you ever posted under
another name to this newgroup?
Harry
Thanks for link about McAdams. I included that as a page on my blog in
case someone might do a search, but I'm sure that's only the TIP of
the iceberg.
Harry
No, this is the first time I've been here. I came basically to "lurk"
as John Simpkins would phrase it, but I coudln't help but jump in the
fire when I saw all the stupid statements being posted here.
Harry
You only prove the point of those that KNOW a conspiracy was involved.
You're a loon and a total wacko. You're also a government-sponsored
troll. Yeah, we know about how the government considers the civilian
internet as a "weapons system" and the Pentagon's plan to infiltrate
blogs and message boards like this one to dirupt them and eventually
flood the servers with so many requests that it shuts down.
Get a real life and stop being a government asset. You're a loser.
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, BTW Budinsky, where's the evidence we've been asking for that
proves Oswald shot anyone?
We're waiting.
Bud
I suggest you get up to speed, before you show yourself to be an
ignorant fool on the issue.
> We're waiting.
Bud
You aren`t dreaming up plots and intrigue in order to spice up your
otherwise dull and drab life?
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I’ll give your “suggestion” all the due it is worth.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I’ve got some news for you, Egbert. You’ve already lost the war. No
one believes you. The American public doesn’t believe the LONE-NUT
theory. The vast majority of Americans know they were lied to and are
being lied to every single day. They don’t trust people that espouse
the government line that Oswald killed Kennedy because they know
better. If anyone is making a fool of himself, Waldo, it’s you and
your “friends.” It’s over. You lose.
curtjester1
head of steam to turn the public into forcing the gov't to re-open the
case or head for the hills for being on the team that took the spoils
from the assassination. If you are of that persuasion, I believe you
will be disappointed. As far as honing one's skills on good
conspiracy information, one can look into some posts and people's
sites and get some pretty neat stuff...or just hit the 'search the
group' in the top right for some topics. As far as the trolls, they
are everywhere. I just look on them as dilusionary, right-wing
wack's, gov't disinfo folk, or members of some satanic cult. Hope
you can handle the dysfunction, and stay.
CJ
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, I plan to.
muc...@gmail.com
This guy knows too much.
Chuck Schuyler
>
> I’ve got some news for you, Egbert. You’ve already lost the war. No
> one believes you. The American public doesn’t believe the LONE-NUT
> theory. The vast majority of Americans know they were lied to and are
> being lied to every single day. They don’t trust people that espouse
> the government line that Oswald killed Kennedy because they know
> better. If anyone is making a fool of himself, Waldo, it’s you and
>
The vast majority of Americans know very little about the
assassination. Most Americans alive today were born after the
assassination. It's an incident they dimly remember studying very
briefly while trying to stay awake in high school civics class.
This is why polls showing that most Americans believe JFK was killed
by a conspiracy are meaningless...they don't know any details. They
vaguely remember seeing JFK on HBO several years ago, and they sort of
remember reading a book or two by Mark Lane, and that comprises most
of their information on the Kennedy murder.
Tally up the posters at this site and at alt.assassination.jfk (and
other forums, too) and you'll probably find, at any given time, a
rough balance between the 'Oswald Aloners' and the 'Everyone But
Oswalders'.
Your paranoia knows no boundaries if you believe, as some posters
apparently believe, that there is some sort of government program to
discredit your views or to flood newsgroups with pro Oswald Alone
posts.
The world is a big place, and you are free to post any silliness you
wish on any subject imaginable. Most people of your ilk believe the
government is covering up the details about the Roswell flying saucer,
is hiding the truth about the Bermuda Triangle, and had something to
do with 9/11 so that we would be ready to hate the peaceful Muslims
and start a war for Halliburton.
The one constant I notice about CT's is the unrelenting bitterness at
life and the nonstop negativity they have about this country.
I disagree with my country PROFOUNDLY over issues of taxation,
abortion, open borders, the abrogation of responsibility on an energy
policy, etc. but I certainly don't feel there is a CONSPIRACY behind
these weighty issues-one way or another.
How do people like you reconcile the goodness you see every day around
you in the actions of ordinary people with the incredible evil you
think these same ordinary people generated on 11/22/63?
The cover-up artists on 11/22/63 would've been average beat cops,
lowly paid FBI agents, mid level bureaucrats, lab technicians, limo
drivers, newspaper reporters, doctors, etc. Thousands and thousands of
people from all walks of life pledging their sacred honor to join in
on the fun and cover up the murder of a man admired around the world.
And what for? Loyalty to Lyndon Johnson? Uber-liberal Johnson is
almost undoubtedly our most liberal POTUS. He shepherded through
congress bills which saddled our economy with Great Society spending
programs that still threaten our economic vitality with their long
term costs.
To top it off, Johnson bungled big parts of the war and didn't even
have enough fire in the belly to run for a second term in 1968-
presumably betraying the plotters of 11/22/63. Yet NO ONE came forward
to blab about 11/22/63 after this betrayal.
Hoover? He's been dead since 1972, and yet kooks still think Hoover
reaches from the grave to keep the cover up in place.
The mob? The FBI has been basically reading the mob's mail, through
wiretapping, since the 1960's. No smoking guns. During the last
several decades, many high ranking mob defectors that were in a
position to know the inner workings of what happened around 11/22/63
spilled their guts on anything to avoid long prison sentences, and
there is nothing about mob involvement with the JFK murder.
CIA? How does the CIA gain cooperation of all of these different
entities to murder JFK? The FBI HATED the CIA in the 1960's. Four
decades later, the 9/11 Commission took the FBI and CIA to task for
their childish agency rivalries-and by most accounts, it was worse in
the 1960's.
And the main questions kooks can never answer is this:
Why not wait until November of 1964 to even see if JFK is reelected?
What was so compelling in the need to splatter his brain all over
Dealey Plaza that sunny afternoon? An unprofessional 'hit' that
supposedly has volleys of bullets being fired from sewers, hills,
bridge overpasses, the Dal-Tex building, etc. whizzing all over a
small plaza in broad daylight and being witnessed by hundreds of
people-many armed with cameras and film cameras.
Why not poison his lunch at the Trade Mart?
Kooks have no answers. Just more questions-the same ones that have
been getting answered for decades.
Earth to Harry:
There were no aliens recovered from Roswell. It really was debris from
an Air Force balloon.
There isn't a secret magnetic field in the area called the Bermuda
triangle that sucks up ships and causes airplanes to crash.
There already is a conspiracy on 9/11/01...19 IslamoNazis flew
airplanes into buildings. The government didn't plan it or let it
happen.
Good luck with your research.
Harry
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Huh?
Did someone say something?
muc...@gmail.com
How old are you, Harry?
Harry
The more pertinent question is how old are you LONE-NUTTERS. You're
worse than bunch of four-year-olds in kindergarten.
Hey, as long as you're here, can you post any evidence that LHO shot
Kennedy?
No?
I thought not.
Bud
We get our fair share of the folks that actually know about the
facts of the case. Most Americans are ignorant of those facts.
> The American public doesn’t believe the LONE-NUT
> theory.
Some do. Many think something fishy occurred. They can only offer
the same "the government blah-blah-blah" that you do to support your
beliefs.
> The vast majority of Americans know they were lied to and are
> being lied to every single day.
If you want to call the vast majority of Americans "idiots", you`ll
get no argument from me.
>They don’t trust people that espouse
> the government line that Oswald killed Kennedy because they know
> better.
How do they know? What convinced them? Don`t most people believe in
an afterlife? Does a lot of people believing this make it so?
> If anyone is making a fool of himself, Waldo, it’s you and
> your “friends.” It’s over. You lose.
Belief doesn`t change reality. The truth isn`t Tinkerbell, it
doesn`t die because you stop believing in it.
Bud
Yah, someone was trying to talk sense to you. Go back to sleep.
Harry
> On Aug 13, 3:40 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrot
>
> > > > > > Of course we do. What the government returned is the only possible
explanation for what we have in evidence. That is why you will never
see a contending CT version of events.
One of the most ludicrous statements I've ever heard in my life.
>>>>>>Yah, why would anyone believe that shots came from where people saw
a shooter or rifle barrel?
Ever heard of a decoy? Even Norman, Williams, and Jarman who were
directly below the sixth floor window never said they heard shots from
that area. Read the WC.
>>>>>Who would think the shooter was the person
holding the murder weapon in photos?
That statement makes no sense.
>>>>>>Why would anyone think that a traitorous political fanatic would kill a political figure?
Are you referring to LBJ, Richard Helms, Gen. Curtis LeMay...?
>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, certainly the quality of posting has risen since you came here.
That's one thing I can agree with you on. You seem to have an
obsession with me, so you DO think the quality of posting has risen
here. Also you're ex-lover, JUSTME, can't stop stalking me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like above. You should work on your flaming, it lacks any wit or imagination.
Well, the flaming sure got your attention. I'm beginning to believe
you're gay the way you keep following me.
BTW, you HAVE lost the battle for the minds of Americans concerning
belief in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Get used to it.
Bud
> On Aug 13, 5:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 3:40 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrot
>
> > > > > > > Of course we do. What the government returned is the only possible
>
> explanation for what we have in evidence. That is why you will never
> see a contending CT version of events.
>
> One of the most ludicrous statements I've ever heard in my life.
Yet you said nothing to refute it. I wonder why?
> >>>>>>Yah, why would anyone believe that shots came from where people saw
>
> a shooter or rifle barrel?
>
> Ever heard of a decoy? Even Norman, Williams, and Jarman who were
> directly below the sixth floor window never said they heard shots from
> that area. Read the WC.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
> >>>>>Who would think the shooter was the person
>
> holding the murder weapon in photos?
>
> That statement makes no sense.
Sorry, I thought you were familiar enough with the evidence where
you didn`t need it spelled out.
> >>>>>>Why would anyone think that a traitorous political fanatic would kill a political figure?
>
> Are you referring to LBJ, Richard Helms, Gen. Curtis LeMay...?
You think the WC named them as responsible?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Well, certainly the quality of posting has risen since you came here.
>
> That's one thing I can agree with you on. You seem to have an
> obsession with me, so you DO think the quality of posting has risen
> here. Also you're ex-lover, JUSTME, can't stop stalking me.
If you are trying for the record of most erroneous assertions,
you`ll have to do better than that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like above. You should work on your flaming, it lacks any wit or imagination.
>
> Well, the flaming sure got your attention.
I regularly read and respond in this newsgroup, so I would come
across what you write here.
>I'm beginning to believe
> you're gay the way you keep following me.
Yah, you would come up with a titillating reason. Kooks often find
reality too bland for their tastes, and feel the need to punch up the
plot.
> BTW, you HAVE lost the battle for the minds of Americans concerning
> belief in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Get used to it.
What kind of idiot would mistake "belief" for "reality"?
BTW, "Harry", are you familiar with Bugliosi`s book on the
assassination "Reclaiming History"? I was wondering if you felt he had
wrote it, or if it was ghostwritten?
Sam Brown
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:38cd916d-36da-41b4...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I think you are on to something there Bud. "Harry" sounds suspiciously like
that other moron.
Harry
> On Aug 13, 8:04 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 5:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 3:40 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrot
>
> > > > > > > > Of course we do. What the government returned is the only possible
>
> > explanation for what we have in evidence. That is why you will never
> > see a contending CT version of events.
>
> > One of the most ludicrous statements I've ever heard in my life.
>
> Yet you said nothing to refute it. I wonder why?
It's not worth REFUTING, as you put it. My statement stands.
>
> > >>>>>>Yah, why would anyone believe that shots came from where people saw
>
> > a shooter or rifle barrel?
>
> > Ever heard of a decoy? Even Norman, Williams, and Jarman who were
> > directly below the sixth floor window never said they heard shots from
> > that area. Read the WC.
I point to the WC and you point to a disinformation con man and expect
that to REFUTE my reply. Ludicrous.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
>
> > >>>>>Who would think the shooter was the person
>
> > holding the murder weapon in photos?
>
> > That statement makes no sense.
I only need convoluted logic and stupid statements spelled out to
reveals the true intent of the author.
>
> Sorry, I thought you were familiar enough with the evidence where
> you didn`t need it spelled out.
>
> > >>>>>>Why would anyone think that a traitorous political fanatic would kill a political figure?
>
> > Are you referring to LBJ, Richard Helms, Gen. Curtis LeMay...?
I don't think you named them at all. I was giving one from column A
and one from column B etc.
>
> You think the WC named them as responsible?
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Well, certainly the quality of posting has risen since you came here.
>
> > That's one thing I can agree with you on. You seem to have an
> > obsession with me, so you DO think the quality of posting has risen
> > here. Also you're ex-lover, JUSTME, can't stop stalking me.
No where you're concerned I won't.
>
> If you are trying for the record of most erroneous assertions,
> you`ll have to do better than that.
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like above. You should work on your flaming, it lacks any wit or imagination.
>
> > Well, the flaming sure got your attention.
>
> I regularly read and respond in this newsgroup, so I would come
> across what you write here.
Then why make such a statement at all?
>
> >I'm beginning to believe
> > you're gay the way you keep following me.
>
> Yah, you would come up with a titillating reason. Kooks often find
> reality too bland for their tastes, and feel the need to punch up the
> plot.
Writing another fiction novel? Take some lessons from the Warren
Commission. Biggest fairy tale ever foisted onto the world.
>
> > BTW, you HAVE lost the battle for the minds of Americans concerning
> > belief in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Get used to it.
>
> What kind of idiot would mistake "belief" for "reality"?
You, for one. You lost the battle for the minds of men. Get used to
it. No one believes the lies of the government or you.
>
> BTW, "Harry", are you familiar with Bugliosi`s book on the
> assassination "Reclaiming History"? I was wondering if you felt he had
> wrote it, or if it was ghostwritten?
What's my opinion of BUG-LEE-O-SEE got to do with the price of beans?
David Von Pein
>>> "Harry, nothing would please the trolls on this board than to see someone as informed as yourself leave." <<<
<large chuckle>
Yeah, we surely wouldn't want to lose someone who thinks that Roger D.
Craig is THE #1 most-reliable witness re. the JFK murder case, would
we? Heavens no.
>>> "...they've been sent here by one Johns McAdams..." <<<
Another kook lie (of course). McAdams pulls nobody's strings in these
forums, and never has. But that won't stop kooks like Jesus from
saying stupid shit like the above quote anyway.
aeffects
David, Sitdown you've been in the humidity far too long, not to
mention sounding like a complete idiot.... .john will pull any string
to destroy this board... he's gone public with the claim....Especially
with subscriptions for this board rising.
Now get a grip on those flaccid loins of yours...
aeffects
> On Aug 13, 5:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 3:40 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrot
>
> > > > > > > Of course we do. What the government returned is the only possible
>
> explanation for what we have in evidence. That is why you will never
> see a contending CT version of events.
>
> One of the most ludicrous statements I've ever heard in my life.
>
> >>>>>>Yah, why would anyone believe that shots came from where people saw
>
> a shooter or rifle barrel?
>
> Ever heard of a decoy? Even Norman, Williams, and Jarman who were
> directly below the sixth floor window never said they heard shots from
> that area. Read the WC.
>
> >>>>>Who would think the shooter was the person
>
> holding the murder weapon in photos?
>
> That statement makes no sense.
>
> >>>>>>Why would anyone think that a traitorous political fanatic would kill a political figure?
>
> Are you referring to LBJ, Richard Helms, Gen. Curtis LeMay...?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Well, certainly the quality of posting has risen since you came here.
>
> That's one thing I can agree with you on. You seem to have an
> obsession with me, so you DO think the quality of posting has risen
> here. Also you're ex-lover, JUSTME, can't stop stalking me.
Justme1952 is this boards resident no-nothing lesbian impersonating,
58 year old IT fraudulent grandmother, neo--nazi with a huge swastika
tattoed on his (Joey's 21 year old back).... The troll has a way of
stalking those she/he/it is terrified of.... 3500+ posts to this board
and the complete idiot doesn't even know who JFK is/was....
The Lone Nutter's have come a long way.... ROTFLMFAO
David Von Pein
>>> ".john will pull any string to destroy this board..." <<<
LOL.
Thursday-morning Kook Alert!
>>> "Now get a grip on those flaccid loins of yours." <<<
Flaccid?
El-Oh-El.
REPRISE......
>>> ".john will pull any string to destroy this board..." <<<
Why on Earth would he have any desire to do that? The regular CT-Kook
posters in this asylum, via their insane Anybody-But-Oswald arguments,
are some of the best advertisements in the world for the validity of
the LN side in the JFK debate.
Plus, just think of all the laughs that would be lost if the acj NG
went bye-bye. Everybody needs their daily belly-laugh. And there's no
better place to get that giggle than from the likes of Gil, Robby,
Harry, Walter, Benji, and Donald (et al).
BTW, Healy, please use the words "gird them loins" more often in the
future. It really helps your stature as a first-rate, top-of-the-deck
JFK researcher. 10-4?
The use of "flaccid" was a nice touch this morning though.
aeffects
> >>> ".john will pull any string to destroy this board..." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> Thursday-morning Kook Alert!
>
> >>> "Now get a grip on those flaccid loins of yours." <<<
>
> Flaccid?
>
> El-Oh-El.
>
> REPRISE......
>
> >>> ".john will pull any string to destroy this board..." <<<
>
> Why on Earth would he have any desire to do that?
one simple reason: his over blown EGO, son! He needs the stage! And
your adoration...
<snip the nonsense>
David Von Pein
>>> "one simple reason: his over blown EGO, son! He needs the stage! And your adoration." <<<
I'd think Mr. Healy would get tired of being dead-wrong all the time.
Wouldn't you?
Bud
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
I thought so. Hard for a person to change their writing style.
Bud
> On Aug 13, 6:54 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 8:04 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 5:20 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 3:40 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrot
>
> > > > > > > > > Of course we do. What the government returned is the only possible
>
> > > explanation for what we have in evidence. That is why you will never
> > > see a contending CT version of events.
>
> > > One of the most ludicrous statements I've ever heard in my life.
>
> > Yet you said nothing to refute it. I wonder why?
>
> It's not worth REFUTING, as you put it. My statement stands.
<snicker> You responded to not address the point I made?
> > > >>>>>>Yah, why would anyone believe that shots came from where people saw
>
> > > a shooter or rifle barrel?
>
> > > Ever heard of a decoy? Even Norman, Williams, and Jarman who were
> > > directly below the sixth floor window never said they heard shots from
> > > that area. Read the WC.
>
> I point to the WC and you point to a disinformation con man and expect
> that to REFUTE my reply. Ludicrous.
I pointed to one of the people you named, idiot.
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
>
> > > >>>>>Who would think the shooter was the person
>
> > > holding the murder weapon in photos?
>
> > > That statement makes no sense.
>
> I only need convoluted logic and stupid statements spelled out to
> reveals the true intent of the author.
These are the kinds of idiots who think their criticism of the WC
is meaningful. He can`t even manage to put his comments under what he
is responding to.
> > Sorry, I thought you were familiar enough with the evidence where
> > you didn`t need it spelled out.
>
> > > >>>>>>Why would anyone think that a traitorous political fanatic would kill a political figure?
>
> > > Are you referring to LBJ, Richard Helms, Gen. Curtis LeMay...?
>
> I don't think you named them at all. I was giving one from column A
> and one from column B etc.
Dropping names is meaningless. You kooks have failed to show those
people participated in Kennedy`s murder. The WC, on the other hand,
had conclusively shown who was.
> > You think the WC named them as responsible?
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Well, certainly the quality of posting has risen since you came here.
>
> > > That's one thing I can agree with you on. You seem to have an
> > > obsession with me, so you DO think the quality of posting has risen
> > > here. Also you're ex-lover, JUSTME, can't stop stalking me.
>
> No where you're concerned I won't.
>
>
>
> > If you are trying for the record of most erroneous assertions,
> > you`ll have to do better than that.
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like above. You should work on your flaming, it lacks any wit or imagination.
>
> > > Well, the flaming sure got your attention.
>
> > I regularly read and respond in this newsgroup, so I would come
> > across what you write here.
>
> Then why make such a statement at all?
What part of "I regularly read and respond in this newsgroup" is
throwing you?
> > >I'm beginning to believe
> > > you're gay the way you keep following me.
>
> > Yah, you would come up with a titillating reason. Kooks often find
> > reality too bland for their tastes, and feel the need to punch up the
> > plot.
>
> Writing another fiction novel? Take some lessons from the Warren
> Commission. Biggest fairy tale ever foisted onto the world.
Produce a contending theory that takes into account all the events
of that day.
> > > BTW, you HAVE lost the battle for the minds of Americans concerning
> > > belief in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Get used to it.
>
> > What kind of idiot would mistake "belief" for "reality"?
>
> You, for one. You lost the battle for the minds of men. Get used to
> it. No one believes the lies of the government or you.
Again, you are talking belief.
> > BTW, "Harry", are you familiar with Bugliosi`s book on the
> > assassination "Reclaiming History"? I was wondering if you felt he had
> > wrote it, or if it was ghostwritten?
>
> What's my opinion of BUG-LEE-O-SEE got to do with the price of beans?
I was curious about something, so I asked about it.
BTW, it should have been "written it", not "wrote it"
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ROFLMAO afraid of the likes of you junkie? Still waiting for all the
proof of the above statements liar.
Why don't you tell Harry who you think JFK is junkie??? You
know ...John FRANCIS Kennedy!
Another bad batch of crack for you junkie, they must see you coming a
mile away (or smell you coming)
Harry
No, IDIOT, you did not, IDIOT. Name one, just ONE, of the people
listed in the TOP POST that changed their testimony! IDIOT!
Harry
Roger Craig has never been proven wrong in his testimony or his
interviews. He certainly had more integrity and courage than a cheap
internet troll like yourself. If you can point "specifically" any lies
Mr. Craig told, you're more than welcome to post them here for
everyone to behold.
Well?
Harry
> On Aug 13, 9:41 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dropping names is meaningless. You kooks have failed to show those
people participated in Kennedy`s murder. The WC, on the other hand,
had conclusively shown who was. >>>>>
LMFAO!!!!!
Oh Lord in Heaven! What a way to start the day. Thanks for the
chuckles, Buddy boy. They go great with my morning coffee. LOL!!
Keep up the good work, son.
David Von Pein
>>> "If you can point "specifically" [to] any lies Mr. [Roger] Craig told, you're more than welcome to post them here for everyone to behold. Well?" <<<
Okay....since you requested it:
"Stamped right on the barrel [of the rifle found by Weitzman &
Boone on the 6th Floor of the TSBD Building] was '7.65 Mauser'." --
Roger D. Craig; Via a 1971 videotaped interview
The above quote by Roger Craig is a provable lie....without a single
shred of a doubt.
You won't find a single other witness who can back up Craig's tall
tale about seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the
rifle found in the Depository.
And the main reason you won't find any other witness of that sort is
because Harry's #1 "most reliable" witness, the late Deputy Sheriff
Roger Dean Craig, was telling a big fat whopper of a lie when he said
he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the gun.
==============================
RELATED ARTICLE......
Here's a re-post of a forum message I wrote in late 2007 re. Roger
"Big Fat Liar" Craig. This 2007 post gets into some of the other lies
that came from the mouth of Harry's #1 "most reliable" witness,
including the ridiculously-false statement about the bullet shells in
the Sniper's Nest being perfectly arranged in parallel fashion when
they were first discovered. Once again, you won't find a single
additional witness to back up this lying sack of shit named R.D.
Craig:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/390e6e0468eda6f1
>>> "Only two countries stamped "Mauser" on the gun, and they were Argentina and Chile." <<<
Any source for this information?
And: Even if ONLY the single word "Mauser" was normally stamped on
some Mauser rifles, it still wouldn't make Craig any less of a
liar....because Craig specifically said he saw "7.65 Mauser" printed
on the gun. Not just the word "Mauser".
Did Chile or Argentina ever print "7.65" on the barrel too (along with
the word "Mauser", as you claim)?
Some verification of your claim that just "Mauser" was stamped on some
guns would be appreciated as well.
>>> "Do we have any sources that are not John's or Bugman's?" <<<
Gobs. I am constantly citing the WCR and the 26 volumes of exhibits
and testimony. Naturally, though, you (being an "Anybody But Oswald"
kook) must disregard everything connected with the Warren Commission.
That's what gives you free reign to be a kook 24/7....because you can
always fall back on the CT-Kook's motto of: "The Warren Report is
useless and worthless".
Nice tactic. If you're a nutcase, that is.
>>> "He {Saint Roger Craig} was not the rifle expert, Weitzman was. Why are you pinning the misidentification on him {Saint Craig}?" <<<
You aren't REALLY this stupid, are you Robby?
I'm not "pinning the misidentification" only on Roger Craig. I know
that both Boone and Weitzman initially said they thought Oswald's
rifle was a Mauser too.
What I'm "pinning" on Craig is the PROVABLE LIE that Craig told when
he said he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle, because that is
simply not true. No way. No how. No other officer said they saw "7.65
Mauser" stamped on the rifle's barrel. Only Craig made this outrageous
claim.
Boone and Weitzman, in fact, both fully retracted their statements
about the rifle being a "Mauser", with both of those officers later
admitting that they were definitely mistaken about their initial
"Mauser" identification. .....
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (While questioning Deputy Sheriff Boone during the
1986 TV Docu-Trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD") -- "Mr. Boone, did
the FBI ever show you a rifle which they said was the rifle found on
the sixth floor?"
EUGENE BOONE -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what did you say when you looked at that rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appears to be the rifle that I saw on the sixth floor
of the School Book Depository."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Well, didn't you just tell Mr. Spence that you could
not identify it?"
MR. BOONE -- "I could not identify it positively because I did not
have an identifying mark on the weapon."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. But it appeared to be the same rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appeared to be the same weapon."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
===============
SEYMOUR WEITZMAN (During a CBS-TV interview in 1967) -- "Mr. Boone was
climbing on top and I was down on my knees looking. And I moved a box
and he moved a carton, and there it was. And he, in turn, hollered we
had found the rifle."
EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"
MR. WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a
Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at
a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came
out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian
type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I
saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my
statement was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
===============
But Roger Craig not only wouldn't retract his "Mauser" statement, he
decided to go one step further into fantasyland by adding the provable
lie of physically SEEING THE WORDS "7.65 Mauser" printed on the rifle
picked up by Lt. Day and Capt. Fritz....even though it was proven
beyond ALL doubt that the VERY SAME RIFLE that was being hoisted in
the air by Day and Fritz on 11/22/63 was a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle,
which had all the appropriate markings on it to show it was an Italian
1940 carbine, made in "Terni", with the unique Carcano serial number
of "C2766".
Roger Craig seemingly manifested "Paul O'Connor Disease" -- i.e., one
untruth/lie seemed to feed and sprout additional untruths and
distortions regarding the things that each man saw in 1963.
O'Connor was THE ONLY WITNESS who claimed to see ALL FOUR of these
things in tandem (you won't find a single other witness who believes
in this "Fantastic Four of JFK Fantasy"):
1.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" casket.
2.) JFK was wrapped in a "body bag" at Bethesda.
3.) JFK had a great-big hole in the back part of his head.
4.) JFK had NO BRAINS in his head at all when he arrived at Bethesda.
And Roger Craig is similar to O'Connor (except in Craig's case, it
involves different lies/distortions and different pieces of evidence):
1.) Craig sees "7.65 Mauser" stamped on Oswald's rifle.
2.) Craig sees the three bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest "lying no
more than an inch apart".
3.) Craig is positive that the man he saw getting into a Rambler on
Elm St. at approx. 12:40 PM on Nov. 22 was Lee Harvey Oswald.
4.) Craig says that he was in Fritz' office and saw Oswald jump up,
get mad, and shout "Everybody will know who I am now".*
* = Which, when you think about it for a minute or two, is really a
rather strange thing for Oswald to say in the first place. Because,
unless Oswald was truly a COMPLETE MORON with no brains in HIS head
either (a la O'Connor's similar observation re. JFK), Oswald would
surely HAVE to realize that the world probably ALREADY KNEW who he was
by the time he supposedly made such a statement in front of Craig (or
that the world would very soon know who he was).
Oswald had been arrested for murder, so he certainly should have known
his identity and personal info were going to be revealed to the
waiting press in a fairly-short amount of time anyway.
So, when put in this context, the statement that Roger Craig
attributes to Lee Oswald actually makes very little (common) sense at
all.
David Von Pein
November 2007
Harry
> >>> "If you can point "specifically" [to] any lies Mr. [Roger] Craig told, you're more than welcome to post them here for everyone to behold. Well?" <<<
>>> "If you can point "specifically" [to] any lies Mr. [Roger] Craig told, you're more than welcome to post them here for everyone to behold. Well?" <<<
Okay....since you requested it:
"Stamped right on the barrel [of the rifle found by Weitzman &
Boone on the 6th Floor of the TSBD Building] was '7.65 Mauser'." --
Roger D. Craig; Via a 1971 videotaped interview
The above quote by Roger Craig is a provable lie....without a single
shred of a doubt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without a single shred of doubt, huh? You state something and it
becomes fact by fiat, is that right?
You won't find a single other witness who can back up Craig's tall
tale about seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of
the
rifle found in the Depository. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Deputy Constable Wetzman filed two reports Friday November 22, 1963
that stated they found a 7.65 “Mauser.” First lie exposed!
And the main reason you won't find any other witness of that sort is
because Harry's #1 "most reliable" witness, the late Deputy Sheriff
Roger Dean Craig, was telling a big fat whopper of a lie when he said
he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the gun. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Big Fat Liar" Craig. >>>>>>>>>
Have you been out of kindergarten long? I haven’t seen such childish
comments since elementary school. Next, we’ll be seeing you post
things like, nyah nyah.
And: Even if ONLY the single word "Mauser" was normally stamped on
some Mauser rifles, it still wouldn't make Craig any less of a
liar....because Craig specifically said he saw "7.65 Mauser" printed
on the gun. Not just the word "Mauser". >>>>>>>>>>>>
MR. WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a
Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just
at
a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came
out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian
type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I
saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my
statement was a mistake; but it was an honest
mistake.">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There were plenty of witnesses then, as well as now, that told
different stories AFTER contact with their superiors or federal
officials. A lot of people came under the gun to change their original
stories to go along with the government’s position that LHO was the
lone assassin even though these people knew that he wasn’t. Some did,
and some didn’t.
Thankfully Roger Craig stuck to his guns. It would seem strange that
the officers that changed their stories remained in the department
while Roger Craig was hounded from the Sheriff’s Department for not
“going along to get along.” Another example is that of is Cmmdr. Humes
being promoted after burning his original autopsy notes. Anyone that
is naïve enough to think the world operates in a linear fashion cannot
be an “expert” on ANY murder case, much less the most important one in
the history of the United States. (Insert insults here)
Anybody But Oswald" Kook>>>>
Hateful remarks prove nothing.
I am constantly citing the WCR and the 26 volumes of exhibits and
testimony.
Naturally, though, you (being an") must disregard everything
connected
with the Warren Commission. That's what gives you free reign to be a
kook 24/7....
because you can always fall back on the CT-Kook's motto of: "The
Warren Report is
useless and worthless". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since the WR contradicts the Hearings and Exhibits in too many cases,
I would have to state unequivocally that it’s a pack of lies—a fairy
story. To quote someone you deeply admire and respect to the point of
worship, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read
it."—Mark Lane
Nutcase>>>>
Nice touch.
He [Saint Roger Craig} was not the rifle expert, Weitzman was.>>>>>
And Weitzman identified it as a 7.65 Mauser, and if Mr. Craig could
read, and I’m assuming he was able to, he could see the stamp on the
barrel as well as Wietzman.
1.JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" casket.>>>>>>>
That’s possible, but I wouldn’t know, I wasn’t there and neither were
you.
2.JFK was wrapped in a "body bag" at Bethesda.>>>>>>>>>>>
ditto
3.JFK had a great-big hole in the back part of his head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s true. Every eyewitness in Dallas, including Clint Hill and the
medical personnel in Parkland Hospital stated that the back of Mr.
Kennedy’s head was missing. Even the Zapruder film shows the back of
his missing in frame 335.
4.JFK had NO BRAINS in his head at all when he arrived at Bethesda.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If someone had access to the body between Parkland and Bethesda, then
the possibility is that they removed incriminating evidence from JFK’s
cranium. It hasn’t been proved one way or another, as far as I know,
but the possibility certainly exists. If they’re willing to murder a
president in broad daylight, tampering with the body afterwards would
be child’s play for them.
3.Craig is positive that the man he saw getting into a Rambler on
Elm St. at approx. 12:40 PM on Nov. 22 was Lee Harvey
Oswald.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even Oswald admitted that. He stated that the station wagon belonged
to Ruth Paine and told the police not to drag her into this mess.
4.Craig says that he was in Fritz' office and saw Oswald jump up,
get mad, and shout "Everybody will know who I am now".* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s an outright lie and you know it. Oswald wasn’t engaging in
braggadocio he was lamenting the fact the people would know who he
was, like he was undercover and the cover he was operating under was
blown.
VINCENT BUGLIOSI (While questioning Deputy Sheriff Boone during the
1986 TV Docu-Trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. MSM
2. Vincent Bugliosi
Entertainment (read, fiction) is not permissible in a court of law as
evidence.
All you’ve done is call Roger Craig a liar with no “proof” that he
lied, quoted known disinformation con men, called names like a 5-year-
old, told outright lies, and expressed your own “personal” opinion.
You haven’t proven anything. And you certainly don’t have any
credibility, especially after referring people to the likes of Vincent
Bugliosi and John McAdams. You might as well recommend Satan the Devil
of the only purveyor of truth and justice. Try your BS somewhere else,
Buster.
David Von Pein
>>> "All you’ve done is call Roger Craig a liar with no “proof” that he lied, quoted known disinformation con men, called names like a 5-year-old, told outright lies, and expressed your own “personal” opinion. You haven’t proven anything. And you certainly don’t have any credibility, especially after referring people to the likes of Vincent Bugliosi and John McAdams. You might as well recommend Satan the Devil of the only purveyor of truth and justice. Try your BS somewhere else, Buster." <<<
If you (an Anybody-But-Oswald mega-kook) want to defend a known liar
like Roger D. Craig....knock yourself out. I, OTOH, will call the
spade a spade. Craig was a liar. Period. And a blatant multiple-liar
at that.
Discussing the evidence in the JFK case with the conspiracy-thirsty
kooks who populate this Internet forum is akin to placing a toy into
the hands of a 1-year-old child --- after about 30 seconds, the infant
tosses the toy aside and wants to play with something else.
The JFK Conspiracy Kook -- A Strange Breed.
(That'd be a good title for a book, indeed.)
Harry
You sound angry. I wonder why? You LONE-NUTTERS "STILL" have prduced
no credible "evidence" against LHO that would stand up in a court of
law before a jury of his peers that would condemn him.Why is that?
You quote known disinformation people, the Warren Report (which has
been proven to be full of contradictions from Hearings and Exhibits),
ignore admissions from people like Gerald Ford that he deliberately
changed the medical evidence to concoct the fairy tale of the SBT to
ignore evidence of mulitple shooters, and disbelieve the two films of
the assassination that clearly show Kennedy's skull going BACKWARD
across the limousine trunk.
You pick and choose what you want to believe, then proceed to
castigate other people for doing the same thing. Sounds like massive
hypocrisy on your part.
You haven't proven your assertion that Roger Craig was lying about
anything. Witnesses change their testimony when it suits them for
various reasons. If Seymour Weitzman stated in two reports Nov. 22,
1963 that the rifle was a Mauser, I'm more inclined to believe those
reports than what was stated later on.
Your assumption that your "beliefs" are paramount in this world
discredits any point you are trying to make and further pushes people
away from your assertions.
Everything in this case can be questioned and looked at from more than
one angle or frame of mind. That is something you, nor anyone else can
change by calling people names, insulting, or getting frustrated. It's
a fact of life.
Bud
Why did you remove this out of context and put it here at the
bottom? It wasn`t written in reference to anyone in a TOP POST, idiot.
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since you think I'm an idiot,whatever response you received from me
you would deen idiotic, now wouldn't you? Why waste your time and
mine? Idiot!
tomnln
Officers in the presence of Capt. Fritz/Lt. Day.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/finding_the_rifle.htm
"Harry" <harryfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e337dd3-21f1-4f10...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...